I only mentioned it because it's such a stereotypical pervert thing to say.

That's the whole point. His case was prejudiced by the behaviour of others, and the stereotypical bigotry of those arresting and convicting him. And the law has a lot of leeway: Its all how cops handle things at the scene, how D.A.s feel about the merits of a case, and how judges feel about their favourite points of law. And lets not forget money or politics. Would OJ or MJ have been convicted?

 

If the girl had been black, dressed as a hooker in the red light district and carrying a razor and he was a white-collar IBM employee would he have been convicted? And yet would his story be more plausible or less in that case?

The message I still get here is that the offense was not a sex offense except under the requirements for registration.

Using the outcome of the Michael Jackson trial alone, I'd appeal to the highest court on the basis of the trial being completely biased against him, and it being impossible for him to get a fair trial under those conditions.

 

And I ask again, how can anyone make a citizen's arrest now?

 

In 1950 it was common sense that if you saw a kid breaking the law, you held him/her for a cop to come along. What has changed?

I think that a power vacuum developed and certain entrepreneurs came in to fill it. You always want to watch those areas that are being ignored. They attract rats and cockroaches. It's like something I watched on TV today about how Pat Robertson got to be such a powerful figure. He wasn't anybody. He just used the television to his advantage. I liked Gene Scott better. He simply asked for money to do the Lord's work, and he got money, and he was open about what he did with it.

 

Other scams involve getting people panicked about other things and willing to do anything to get someone to "do something about it", including doing the thinking that they should be doing for themselves. Then again, I've seen how desparate some people get to get someone to do their math homework for them. Same difference. If I were to make such a choice, I'd rather be someone who was hired to put in a good word to the Lord for someone. It's easy enough, He listens to everyone, and it doesn't require being mean to someone if you are your own boss. Send me a few dollars, I'll do what I can to put your name in the book of Life, there's worse ways to try to make a buck.

i think that's ludacris. the only reason the man should have been charged is if he touched the girl inappropriately, attempted to force her to perform some kind of sexual act, or if he had inflicted bodily harm to her (by which case, he should have been charged with assault). from what i understand, he did not ask her to get in the car, did not ask her to engage in sexual acts, did not touch her inappropriately, and did not inflict bodily harm...

*sigh* the justice system has some major flaws... unfortunately, innocent civilians, such as this man, have to pay for them.

 

and what was he supposed to call her?

"come here, female adolescent!!!"

"Hey you, hormonally challenged! Miss Demeanor! Get off the road before I get arrested for touching a minor. Now just stay right here please, while I wait for the police to do a sexual offender check. What do you mean I already have a record?"

^ hah, nice.